Are ccw permit fees unconstitutional??

[Glenn E. Meyer]

SW makes seven shot revolvers also. So confusing. Silly rules.

[Rifleman1776]

We already have permits that do not require money to have, or keep.
The second is our Constitution and the 2ndA.
The first is simply a God given right to live and not have that life taken, unjustly, by another.
No money required.
As far as CCW laws are concerned, yes, I believe them unconstitutional. For most of the reasons already stated.

[44 AMP]

The underlying "problem" is that slowly, incrementally, over the last two centuries (and particulary rapidly in the last century) we have changed from a society were nearly anything was allowed, unless it was forbidden, to one where many more things are forbidden and many things are allowed only if approved.

One of the problems with permits (and I agree that the concept is a violation of the accepted understanding of the word "infringed") is that they are state laws. Looking at the Federal Constitution and calling all repugnant state laws unconstitutional as a blanket statement is incorrect.

Our nation is a curious dichotomy, with the idea of a strong Federal government, and one set of rules for all on one side, and the issue of state's rights to their own laws and governance on the other.

The original intent of the Founders was not to have the governments of the "several states" to be mearly local administrators of Federal law.

Each state (or commonwealth) has its own constitution. And while these documents generally mirror the federal one, there are differences. And any lawyer or engineer will tell you the devil (or God, depending on their viewpoint) is in the details.

The 2nd Amendment says we have the right to "keep and bear arms" (and please spell bear correctly!) while several states say "keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state" (or similar wording). Note the small, seemingly inconsequential difference in the language used. We all understand that the "defense of self and state" is implied in the Fed 2nd Amendment, but it isn't written. And as earlier noted, legal English is NOT the same (anymore) as regular spoken English.

A good example of this is "I pulled up to the stop sign, stopped, looked both ways, and after a minute, pulled out". Now, what you have just told the court is that you waited a full 60 seconds before pulling out. And if it turns out that you did not wait the full 60 seconds, you have lied to the court, and your credability in all things is now questioned. The simple use of the word "minute" instead of of "moment", something done daily by virtually all of us, can open a real can of worms in court.

How then do you think that the language of our laws is any different in a court? What seems clear and unambigous to us can be very different in court (or in the legislatures). Sad, but true.

Yes, we should not have to get prior approval for anything that is a "right", nor should we have to pay for such appoval. I agree. Reality, however, is somewhat different.

I hold that in principle one should not have to proove to the government that one is not a prohibited person. It is their responsibility to proove that you are. And they should pay for it, as well.

And before you start crying about how you shouldn't have to pay for my background check (through taxes), I would suggest that we have the govt use the money (of ours) that it already has, rather than spending it on subsidising someone dropping elephant dung on a picture of the Madonna and calling it art!

[Patriot86]

You have the right to defend your life and liberty, something i think the 2A was crafted towards though not implicitly to protect. Back in the 1770's no one conceal carried, most weapons were long rifles or muskets. A pistol of the day was probably the weapon of last resort. I whole heartedly believe our founding fathers had they known what would have become of our gun laws, would have clearly allowed CCW and Open Carry without any kind of permitting or fee structure. Like many here say, pick your battle. States will fight tooth and nail to protect their revenue streams but it is a worth while fight. While paying $50.00 in one state may be reasonable, paying $500 in my mind is not.

[Mike Irwin]

"spending it on subsidising someone dropping elephant dung on a picture of the Madonna and calling it art!"

I would gladly send some of my tax dollars to the artist if the elephant were to plop on Madonna herself.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

One of the problems with permits (and I agree that the concept is a violation of the accepted understanding of the word "infringed") is that they are state laws. Looking at the Federal Constitution and calling all repugnant state laws unconstitutional as a blanket statement is incorrect.

This is true. Originally the 2nd Amendment constrained only the Federal government. But, as you also point out, most (if not all) of the original states had a corollary provision in their own constitutions.

However, the SCOTUS has now determined that, courtesy of the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment now DOES constrain the states. So it's not a matter of looking at state laws and saying that all state laws we find repugnant are unconstitutional. But, the ones that expressly run contrary to the Constitution certainly are unconstitutional.

The laws pertaining to firearms are an interesting package. Some states allow open carry without any permit, thus satisfying the 2nd Amendment (and their own state constitutions). In such states, it can be argued that a permit and a fee to carry concealed is perhaps not an infringement (although I would disagree), since the person can carry openly.

But any number of states, including (ironically) some whose own constitutions supposedly guarantee the RKBA, don't allow ANY carry without a permit. And I submit that such a situation is unconstitutional.

[watchdog]

As In Murdock, I believe permit fees are unconstitutional, IF a permit is the only way you can carry in your state.

This is the best answer to the question. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a natural right that existed before the second amendment: it was merely codified by the second amendment's operational clause "shall not be infringed". The manner of exercising the right is regulated by sovereignty of each State. Vermont chose not to require a license for concealed carry, as anyone (who is not in prison) can legally carry. States that restrict voting rights, the right to sit on a jury, etc., require licensing for determination of legality.

For example, a person has a natural right to fish. If they fish on their own land, no license is required. If they fish on public lands, they must have a license. If your neighbor gives permission to fish on his property, no license is required because it's private property and he has consented.

States requiring permits to carry (license or no carry) infringe on the natural right.

[BlueTrain]

Does a person have a natural right to vote? I mean, this is entirely a hypothetical question, you understand. And likewise, does a person have an obligation to vote?

Nobody likes to talk about obligations, do they?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

IIRC, the Constitution had many restrictions on voting - thus a natural right was part of that discussion. If our society has evolved to see voting as a natural right then what does that mean for the folks who hark back to the Founding Fathers as equivalent to the laws of physics?

[watchdog]

Does a person have a natural right to vote? I mean, this is entirely a hypothetical question, you understand. And likewise, does a person have an obligation to vote?

Nobody likes to talk about obligations, do they?

Straight forward: NO. Prior to the emancipation proclamation, women and negroes were prohibited from voting.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later president, 1776 on letting everyone vote.

Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.

[BlueTrain]

Alas, good sirs, I have not a farthing nor baubee to my name myself, I am embarassed to admit, though I have long retained a trifling amount of pfennigs saved from my service with my country's armies, but I must hasten to add that I know not where said coins may be found at the instant, due to my lack of a need for same since it became impossible to purchase Augsberger bier anywhere in the vicinity of the district wherein I have settled.

Another theme going through this thread is that apparently nothing should cost anything. That would be the ultimate entitlement. And the current federal budget is one third red ink.

[oneounceload]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a natural right

No it isn't a "natural" right - it is a right granted by the FF to the people - a "natural" right deals with Nature/God - neither of which can grant a right to bear arms

[44 AMP]

but we may not be viewing the terms the same way....

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a natural right

No it isn't a "natural" right - it is a right granted by the FF to the people - a "natural" right deals with Nature/God - neither of which can grant a right to bear arms

It is most certainly a "natural" right, and was viewed as such by the Founding Fathers. And the key word here is "arms". Today, and in the time of the founders, it was meant as firearms in conversation, and in legal documents, they being the most advanced arms available to man. But in the base concept, "arms" means weapons, be it a gun, sword, club, or rock. It is a natural right to man, to use such as he may devise as his arms, just as it is the natural right of the lion to use its claws and teeth.

The right of the individual to arms for protection of self and others against attack by perils two and four legged, or no legged is the most basic and fundamental right I can imagine. No deer is morally or legally wrong to use its antlers as arms for protection. And no law prohibiting self defense is moral or just.

If you have a personal moral code demanding no resistance to violence, that is your individual choice. But there can be no law ordering us all not to resist, if we choose otherwise. I don't know about you, but even if there were such a law, it wouldn't matter to me. One has to be alive to be frightened of going to jail. IF there is such a law saying it is illegal to fight back, most people I know, even the most anti-gun would think it mad. They might object strongly to the idea of using a gun, but none of them would willingly agree to having their throats cut without doing something.

The Founding Fathers granted the people no rights. The recognised it is not in the power of man to do so. One has natural (or God given) rights simply because one exists. What the Founding Fathers did was write rules for government naming limits on what government had the legal authority to do. Just look at the wording of not only the Constitution, but specifically the bill of rights. All of those vital first 10 Amendments are restrictions and limits on the government. Nothing is granted the people that we did not already posess, simply be being the people. What was written was to ensure that the government being formed had to recognize our "natural" rights, and what the limits on government's lawful power over those rights was to be.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by oneounceload

No it isn't a "natural" right - it is a right granted by the FF to the people - a "natural" right deals with Nature/God - neither of which can grant a right to bear arms

You need to go back and retake high school Civics. The Bill of Rights does not purport to "grant" any rights. It was written to guarantee (not create, or grant) natural, human rights that the Founding Fathers regarded as pre-existing at the time of the Revolution. In fact, much of the debate over whether or not to even have a Bill of Rights was based on the view that, because the rights enumerated were already in existence, it was redundant to state them.

[watchdog]

Ditto 44 AMP and Aguila.